Jump to content
The Education Forum

Introduction - New Guy


Recommended Posts

Ron Ecker,

I've read that the two principal authors of the HSCA report have denied making the written misrepresentation to which you refer. The suggestion I've read is that some third party is responsible for the misrepresentation. From what I've read, the party who misrepresented the doctors' opinions was a CIA-related individual.

Could you cite this source, so that I can also read it?

Curtis could you cite me a source that says this is not true, so that I can also read it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The only thing left to discount a conspiracy would be something almost beyond belief. I mean, you'd almost need a magic bullet!

As someone who espouses the dual belief of Oswald acting alone, and "science" - there's nothing "magic" about the bullet, at all.

Is that why it's called the single bullet 'theory'? It did have pixie dust on it when tested, but I don't think I can cite the source for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have held an undamped and near life-long fascination with JFK. While it's inception was purely assassination-focused, and as a fervent proponent any number of conspiracy theories, it has long-since morphed into my being predominantly focused on everything but the assassination - the man, his ideals, family, friends, administration, the good, the bad, the significant and trivial, alike.

My earliest memory of having anything more than a passing interest of JFK occurred when I was app. 11 years old, when I happened across a thick paperback book entitled, "High Treason". Standing in the middle of a Kmart, flipping through it's pages, I discovered the book to include several and rather disturbing post-mortem photos of the late President. As if I needed further incentive, other pages contained several rather sensational statements of "conspiracy", "murder", "cover-up" and the like. If it was meant to grab the casual reader, young as I was, it succeeded. I was both intrigued and curiously anxious to read the book, so as to answer the simple question of, "What happened?". I do not know how I convinced my mother to purchase the book for me, but she did, and I poured over it as soon as I got home, ultimately, reading it several times throughout those early years, and referencing it often.

Later, I caught a glimpse of Gerald Posner on the Today show one morning, before going off to school, and overheard his discussion about his new book, "Case Closed". I immediately scoffed and dismissed the very existence of any notion that Oswald acted alone, and that no conspiracy existed. Later, I got a copy of his book, read it, and recall having grave and pervasive doubts about my many, and to that point sincerely held, conspiratorial beliefs.

The issue remained in some fluctuation in my mind's eye over the next several years I wasn't sure what I believed, to be honest, and worse, it could not only change by the last article or book that I had read, but at times, even by the moment. For years, I held off on reading the Warren Commission Report. In my younger years, before we held the internet in our pockets, it was all-too-easy to avoid. In fact, I don't know how I could have gotten a copy of it, even had I wanted to, prior to the internet. Later, and after the internet became a staple of our lives (sometime around 2000-01, maybe?), and it was readily available, I still felt a pang of honest hesitation in reading it. For reasons unknown at the time, but which become clearer with the dual benefit of both age and hindsight, I now know that I put it off for so long, simply because I was afraid of what I might find, and worse, that it would all make sense, and that my own intellectual honesty would force me to sacrifice even the last vestiges of any possibility of my conspiratorial beliefs.

Now, unsurprisingly with the aid of hindsight, this is precisely what occurred.

I do not now believe that there has been one scintilla of any credible or empirical evidence of a conspiracy of any kind, in any direction, or which in any way sheds even a faint or whispered doubt on the singular and ultimate truth - that Lee Harvey Oswald acted entirely alone in the planning, execution, and assassination of JFK.

Despite my certainty, I remain sincerely open to the possibility of being wrong, and have neither qualms nor trouble in admitting where my own ignorance or mistaken beliefs have lead to an erroneous conclusion, when necessary. In fact, I would not only accept but welcome - any information which could effectively prove that some element of a conspiracy was involved, even to me, and in my own mind's eye.

But I do not believe that it does, and hence, do not hold my breath in waiting for it.

Having been a long-time lurker, I can say that I am impressed, oftentimes bordering on amazed, at both the depth and quality of your discussions, and the level of cumulative knowledge which so many members seem to share, and from either side of the debate, and all points in-between.

I will try to keep up, and hopefully contribute in some small way. Where I cannot, I will try to stay out of the way.

Thank you for allowing me to participate.

Wow a born again Lone Nutter.... how original. Every Lone Nutter I know was a CTer to begin with but got baptised and are born again. Now they're all going to Heaven. and All.....I mean 100% + All of them are open to ANY evidence that will open their minds to the REAL truth. Well Curtis, you don't get too many points for originality but I will give you one for BS.

What's the aim here, Kenneth, or the point which you're attempting to make?

That I should not be open to any evidence?

How's that working for you, thus far?

"That I should not be open to any evidence?" You will not be open to any evidence, your mind is made up. How's that working for you thus far?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum, Curtis.

I have always wondered this, and perhaps you could clue me in. You say that you used to favor a conspiracy, but now you cannot find "one scintilla of credible evidence." Well, what evidence made you feel like there was a conspiracy in the first place? Is that evidence all void now? My point is that I feel like LNers always overcompensate and unfairly assert there to be no credible evidence. I believe there was a conspiracy and concede that there is indeed damning evidence against Oswald.

I feel like I say this weekly, but there are great researchers and authors on this forum whose work you should familiarize yourself. IMO, Check out patspeer.com: it's a good starting point to dispel myths that there is no evidence of a conspiracy.

Brian - thank you very much for the welcome.

I was a most reluctant concert, I assure you. I think that my belief in a conspiracy was the culmination of many things, chief of which, was that I simply wanted to believe that a conspiracy existed. In fact, albeit at the risk of painting with a too-broad brush, I think that is the central and necessary element of every conspiracy theorist - to want to believe it. From my own experience, I then spent considerable time and effort looking to support that desired conclusion. I only read what agreed with my opinion, and rejected anyone or anything which might challenge or otherwise fail to support it. Ultimately, I should have begun by challenging my own need to believe it, instead and first.

As information became more widely available, and I allowed myself to explore and give it honest consideration, the actual, provable, tangible, credible and empirical facts simply became impossible to ignore. Over time, I could not continue to reconcile my belief in a conspiracy theory, and at the expense of my own intellectual honesty. And so, I chose the latter.

I do not believe that there is one scintilla of evidence which has been produced or provided (admittedly, perhaps I have missed or misunderstood it), in any regard, which would allow a reasonable person's mind to conclude that there was any form of a conspiracy, whatsoever.

I do not make this claim to be either sensationalistic or inflammatory, to anyone or anything, but because I have fully and completely satisfied myself that the mere absence of any credible evidence is more than sufficient means to conclude that it's absence is, by definition, the result of it never having existed, at all.

As I've said - I am perfectly willing to admit my error, and would sincerely welcome it - but only at the presentment of empirically credible and independently verifiable proof and evidences. One of the best things about being on this side, is that it is the CT's who are making the claim, and are burdened with producing it's support and defense.

And therein lies the rather cyclic rub, it can be produced because it simply doesn't exist. And somewhere, I always knew that in the years before my "conversion", and maybe others have felt the same.

Have their been oddities? Curiosities? Coincidences? Any number of seemingly plausible theories, in whole or in part? Are there questions about particularities of often secondary (or tertiary) importance to the singular questikn of conspiracy. Certainly.

But evidence? None. Not one.

And this absence of proof necessarily prevents any definitive linking between Oswald and any of the dozens or so groups and people who probably rejoiced in Kennedy's death, in my opinion.

I will say this, and easily; I am certain that my level of knowledge and the amount of time I have researched the matter, sizable and long-standing as it has been - is dwarfed and comparitively insignificant to a great many of the regular posters, here. And I am happy to be educated by them all.

Curt, I'll bet that you can't give me one scintilla of evidence that LHO shot JFK. I'll bet that for a shot being fired from the snipers nest. I'll bet that for one bullet being fired into the limo from C2766. You want to prove LHO guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, the floor is open.

I don't know if you're unfamiliar with how this works, or I am.

I was operating on the understanding that the official version of events was that LHO acted alone, and that no conspiracy exists.

You're claiming that LHO did not act alone? That a conspiracy did exist? Both?

The difference in our positions is that I am on the side of the truth, as best we know it. You claim to have proof of an alternative. But you need my proof, and my truth, so as to even substantiate the very means of your having an alternative and opposite position?

In other words, if my position was unproven, what then are you objecting to, exactly?

"I was operating on the understanding that the official version of events was that LHO acted alone," well see, that's where you went wrong. There is no "official version" There is only a "Directed Warren Commission Cover-up" that did not reach a conclusion. It started out with the conclusion and only put together a report excluding contrary evidence and witnesses that stated what their Directed Opinions were. If you adopt that official Nutter position you can't go astray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose I simply relent and say that the Parkland Hospital doctors were correct in their identification of the head wound. Walk me through exactly who "doctored" the evidence later, keeping a close count on the number of people that such a decision and action would have been required to complete, and specifically how this was accomplished, and for what specific purpose.

How is anyone supposed to know all that? What a typical LN tactic. I got the same thing from Paul Baker when I said I think Connally was not shot with the same bullet that hit JFK. So Baker wants me to tell him where the other shooter was. How am I supposed to know?

Why don't you just ask who killed JFK? Since I and others here believe there was a conspiracy, surely we must know who did it!

Ron, I'm not using any "tactic", at all. Instead, I'm simply asking what are entirely reasonable questions, and which only require a simple and straight-forward answer.

What? Here's what you "simply" asked: "Walk me through exactly who 'doctored' the evidence later, keeping a close count on the number of people that such a decision and action would have been required to complete, and specifically how this was accomplished, and for what specific purpose." And you think that would "only require a simple and straight-forward answer"? Who are you trying to kid?

Again, is it plausible that the attending physicians at Parkland were simply wrong about the placement of the head wound?

No, I don't think it's plausible. I respect them as doctors, and they wrote down what they saw. They could have written something like "I think there was a large wound in the occipital, but I can't be sure because we were all in a hurry." But they didn't. They did not equivocate, they made plain statements about what they saw. Period.

Of the two sets of physicians, which do you think was most likely to have mistaken the location of the head wound - those at Parkland, or Bethesda?

As I recall, the eyewitnesses to the large wound in the back of the head at Bethesda were not physicians, they were various medical personnel or technicians. They stated what they saw, and I will remind you that the HSCA Report flat-out lied about it. Why do you think it lied? That would "only require a simple and straightforward answer."l

How are you supposed to know all of what, Ron? How you believe that the existence of some variation between the respective accounts of two wholly separate groups of doctors, in two completely different settings, means that medical evidence must have been changed / hidden, and that such arose from a conspiracy?

I guess you must be talking about the variation between what the Parkland doctors saw and what Humes said what was seen at the autopsy. I put little credence in statements by the conductors of a sham autopsy. The Parkland doctors had no reason to lie or otherwise adhere to a dictated scenario for fear of losing a military pension.

I don't know how I can support your claim, on your behalf, Ron, well, because it's yours.

I'm asking how this leads in any way leads to a conspiracy - even if you're right about the reason of the various accounts - and you can't do so.

If you can't explain how this leads to a conspiracy....maybe it's because it doesn't, and you shouldn't believe that it does.

I've explained how it leads to a conspiracy. A gaping wound in back of the head means a shot from the front. But belittle or dismiss the Parkland doctors (their statements corroborated by personnel at Bethesda as well as by Clint Hill) all you want. What else can you do?

I've stated before you joined the forum that I don't argue with LNers and young-Earth creationists. So consider this my final word to you.

The Parkland doctors are given immediate credibility and respect in their findings, but the Bethesda physicians are not?

That's rather convenient.

And the docs at Bethesda went along so as to protect their pensions. That's a big statement. Could you cite your source on this? If you have no source, could you withdraw it as nothing more than simple conjecture on your part, so that we don't further muddy the already murky water?

And the HSCA lied? Where, exactly? I'd like to look into that.

A "gaping wound in the back of the head means a shot from in front"...says who? And of course, even that question is predicated on your correct in believing the Parkland doctors, and dismissing those at Bethesda (which seems, well, a little more than self-serving).

Finally, I appreciate your stance on "young earth creationists" and as much as it would help you to villify and dismiss me, you should know that I am neither.

"And the HSCA lied? Where, exactly? I'd like to look into that." Gee Curtis, you know EVERYTHING and you don't know where they lied? Simple just read it, you'll know them when you see them. They're everywhere....

Again, Kenneth, I think you're confused as to how it works.

It's the person who advances the claim who is required, by definition, to support it - and is not nor cannot be done by the person who did not make the claim.

Here's a very quick example, and see if you can spot the trouble in your logic.

1. I claim that you dress up as Mary Poppins and engage goats in an intimate way.

2. I now ask YOU to provide ME with proof that this statement is untrue, and failing that, insist that we should simply accept it as being the truth.

So now, Kenneth, you prove to me that assertion of your dressing as Mary Poppins and becoming intimate with goats is untrue.

And.....GO!

And you mention 'silliness' in your comments to me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose I simply relent and say that the Parkland Hospital doctors were correct in their identification of the head wound. Walk me through exactly who "doctored" the evidence later, keeping a close count on the number of people that such a decision and action would have been required to complete, and specifically how this was accomplished, and for what specific purpose.

How is anyone supposed to know all that? What a typical LN tactic. I got the same thing from Paul Baker when I said I think Connally was not shot with the same bullet that hit JFK. So Baker wants me to tell him where the other shooter was. How am I supposed to know?

Why don't you just ask who killed JFK? Since I and others here believe there was a conspiracy, surely we must know who did it!

Ron, I'm not using any "tactic", at all. Instead, I'm simply asking what are entirely reasonable questions, and which only require a simple and straight-forward answer.

What? Here's what you "simply" asked: "Walk me through exactly who 'doctored' the evidence later, keeping a close count on the number of people that such a decision and action would have been required to complete, and specifically how this was accomplished, and for what specific purpose." And you think that would "only require a simple and straight-forward answer"? Who are you trying to kid?

Again, is it plausible that the attending physicians at Parkland were simply wrong about the placement of the head wound?

No, I don't think it's plausible. I respect them as doctors, and they wrote down what they saw. They could have written something like "I think there was a large wound in the occipital, but I can't be sure because we were all in a hurry." But they didn't. They did not equivocate, they made plain statements about what they saw. Period.

Of the two sets of physicians, which do you think was most likely to have mistaken the location of the head wound - those at Parkland, or Bethesda?

As I recall, the eyewitnesses to the large wound in the back of the head at Bethesda were not physicians, they were various medical personnel or technicians. They stated what they saw, and I will remind you that the HSCA Report flat-out lied about it. Why do you think it lied? That would "only require a simple and straightforward answer."l

How are you supposed to know all of what, Ron? How you believe that the existence of some variation between the respective accounts of two wholly separate groups of doctors, in two completely different settings, means that medical evidence must have been changed / hidden, and that such arose from a conspiracy?

I guess you must be talking about the variation between what the Parkland doctors saw and what Humes said what was seen at the autopsy. I put little credence in statements by the conductors of a sham autopsy. The Parkland doctors had no reason to lie or otherwise adhere to a dictated scenario for fear of losing a military pension.

I don't know how I can support your claim, on your behalf, Ron, well, because it's yours.

I'm asking how this leads in any way leads to a conspiracy - even if you're right about the reason of the various accounts - and you can't do so.

If you can't explain how this leads to a conspiracy....maybe it's because it doesn't, and you shouldn't believe that it does.

I've explained how it leads to a conspiracy. A gaping wound in back of the head means a shot from the front. But belittle or dismiss the Parkland doctors (their statements corroborated by personnel at Bethesda as well as by Clint Hill) all you want. What else can you do?

I've stated before you joined the forum that I don't argue with LNers and young-Earth creationists. So consider this my final word to you.

The Parkland doctors are given immediate credibility and respect in their findings, but the Bethesda physicians are not?

That's rather convenient.

And the docs at Bethesda went along so as to protect their pensions. That's a big statement. Could you cite your source on this? If you have no source, could you withdraw it as nothing more than simple conjecture on your part, so that we don't further muddy the already murky water?

And the HSCA lied? Where, exactly? I'd like to look into that.

A "gaping wound in the back of the head means a shot from in front"...says who? And of course, even that question is predicated on your correct in believing the Parkland doctors, and dismissing those at Bethesda (which seems, well, a little more than self-serving).

Finally, I appreciate your stance on "young earth creationists" and as much as it would help you to villify and dismiss me, you should know that I am neither.

"And the HSCA lied? Where, exactly? I'd like to look into that." Gee Curtis, you know EVERYTHING and you don't know where they lied? Simple just read it, you'll know them when you see them. They're everywhere....

Again, Kenneth, I think you're confused as to how it works.

It's the person who advances the claim who is required, by definition, to support it - and is not nor cannot be done by the person who did not make the claim.

Here's a very quick example, and see if you can spot the trouble in your logic.

1. I claim that you dress up as Mary Poppins and engage goats in an intimate way.

2. I now ask YOU to provide ME with proof that this statement is untrue, and failing that, insist that we should simply accept it as being the truth.

So now, Kenneth, you prove to me that assertion of your dressing as Mary Poppins and becoming intimate with goats is untrue.

And.....GO!

Okay, you claim that LHO did it all by himself. Prove it......And .....GO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an exercise in "fake debate."

Any murder case on the planet will start with the physical evidence.

The only extant physical evidence relating to the murder of JFK is his clothing.

At four inches below the bottoms of the collars, the bullet defects are too low to allow for a single shooter.

But due to the mass denial generated by the initial cover-up of this murder the physical evidence is routinely ignored/misrepresented.

In the words of JFK Assassination Critical Community leading light Jim DiEugenio -- "Most researchers respect the clothing evidence."

Most?

Jim has bragged about how he ignores the physical evidence in the JFK murder.

The LN/CT paradigm is a false dichotomy.

I thought that a recent show on the assassination showed that the bullet holes in JFK's clothing perfectly aligned with the entrance wounds,

Yes, with the wound at T3.

and that earlier theories had erred in failing to account for his raised arms, which would have also raised his shirt, and thus, refuting the claim.

Where do you get the idea that raising your arm causes your shirt to rise up multiple inches?

Do I not recall this correctly? Or is there other and additional information which serves to overturn this refutation? If so, what is it?

Turn your head to the right.

Glance down at your right shoulder-line.

Keeping your eye on the fabric of your shirt, slowly raise your right arm and casually wave.

Observe the fabric of your shirt indent along your shoulder-line.

It's a fact, Curtis, that your shirt indents along the shoulder-line every time you imitate JFK in the motorcade.

Why would it be any different for JFK?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, Lone Nutters are the people who, when presented an electron microscope to examine the evidence, decline...because if the 1964-era magnifying glass was good enough for the Warren Commission, it should be good enough for everyone in 2015.

And that also goes for the modern research that points out the flaws in the FBI's neutron activation analysis of bullet fragments in 1964. ["In short, neutron activation analysis cannot be used to determine the origin of bullet fragments. The technique is no longer used by the FBI for this purpose.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...